The finding that an unacceptably high percentage of preservice
elementary teachers shared a negative perception of their past
encounters with socialstudies presents a serious challenge. The
cumulative percentage
of participants who described their past socialstudies
courses as being either "very interesting" or "interesting"
was 58.5 percent. For those who reported their past socialstudies
courses as being either "very uninteresting" or
"uninteresting," the cumulative percentage was 41.5 percent.

The harsh reality is that over two-fifths of the participants
described most
of their past socialstudies courses as
being more
or less boring. That finding substantiates other research that
indicated that
students often perceived socialstudies
as a boring
subject (Schug, Todd, and Berry 1984; Shaughnessy and Haladyna
1985). I
believe the finding, which comes from a sample in which 90 percent of
the
participants were women, adds to the literature by connecting the
negative
perception to the low status that socialstudies
has among preservice elementary teachers
(the second
challenge).

The fact that most elementary education
programs either
offer only one course that concentrates solely on socialstudiesmethods or combine it with other content areas
raises the
question of whether it is expecting too much from professors to have
them
strive to alter the negative perception that many preservice
elementary teachers have of socialstudies.
After all, how much enthusiasm for teaching socialstudies
can professors really be expected to
generate, over
the course of a semester, among those who have found socialstudies
to be anything but interesting?

A related issue is the temptation for individuals to equate
the
uninteresting with the unimportant. Too many preservice
elementary teachers are likely to have experienced disengagement on a
cognitive
and affective level with the content of socialstudies
courses. If one of the goals of socialstudies
educators is ensuring that socialstudies
"receive vigorous support as a vital curriculum component responsible
for
accomplishing uniquely important purposes and goals" (NCSS 1994, 174),
then maybe the place to begin rallying support is on the preservice
level.

The first challenge is how to change the negative perception
that many preservice elementary teachers
have of socialstudies and how to convince them that it is an
important and
vital subject in the curriculum.

Challenge 2: Lack of Interest in Teaching SocialStudies

What should come as no surprise is the connection between the
negative past
experiences of the participants and their current lack of interest in
teaching socialstudies. Of the participants who were completing
the course, twice
as many of them (33.2%) reported their interest level for teaching socialstudies before enrolling in the course as being
"low,"
compared to the number of participants (16.6%) who reported it as being
"high." Actually, the finding that a majority of these participants
(50.2%) reported their interest level as being "medium" appears
rather generous and provides some basis for optimism that professors
can
somehow "turn things around" in favor of socialstudies.
One would like to think that the tepid or low interest level that many preservice elementary teachers may have for
teaching socialstudies before taking a socialstudiesmethods course is not necessarily indicative of
what their
interest level will be when they are about to complete one.
Unfortunately, such
optimism appears ill-founded.

When competing against the other content
areas in the
traditional elementary curriculum for the participants' selection as
their most
preferred content area, socialstudies
did not fare
well, as shown in table 1. Socialstudies
ranked
either last or next-to-last and was
consistently
surpassed by language arts, reading, and mathematics, in this order.
These
findings are similar to those of Houser (1995) who found socialstudies
to have a secondary status among inservice
elementary
teachers. Confirming the earlier conclusion that preservice
elementary teachers have a low regard for socialstudies
before taking the course, the participants who had not taken the course
chose socialstudies the fewest number of times as their most
preferred
content area. Of the participants who were completing the course, socialstudies was chosen next to last. Although the
positive news is
that the position of socialstudies
improved among
the participants who were about to complete the course, there is little
cause
for celebration in socialstudies being
chosen next
to last by tomorrow's teachers. The second challenge awaiting
professors is
changing the reality that many preservice
elementary
teachers have concluded that other subjects in the curriculum are more
desirable to teach than socialstudies.
Unless
their minds are changed, the secondary status of socialstudies
in the curriculum will continue.

Challenge 3: Confusion over the nature of SocialStudies

Although the history of socialstudies
is
replete with conflicting views about its nature and definition (Allen
1996;
Barr, Barth, and Shermis
1977; Barr, Barth, and Shermis
1978), preservice elementary teachers
should
fundamentally understand that it is a field of study
(Engle 1976;
Maxim 1995; Oliva 1982) that draws content
from a
variety of sources, predominately from the social
sciences (Martorella 1994; National Council
for the SocialStudies 1994).

The first item on the questionnaire asked participants to
respond to the
following statement: "Socialstudiesis one of the social sciences,
just like
sociology and economics." The item is worded in a manner that could
bring
a negative response. It is quite common for
elementary
socialstudiesmethods
textbooks
(Banks 1985; Ellis 1995; Maxim 1995; Naylor and Diem, 1987) to list the
academic disciplines in the social Sciences. Although
sociology
and economics are always included in these lists, socialstudies
never is. In fact, what preservice
elementary teachers are supposed to understand is that the existence of
socialstudies is dependent upon its multidisciplinary and
interdisciplinary nature (Banks 1985; Martorella
1994). Of the participants who had not yet taken the course, 59.2
percent of
them agreed with the statement, and 22.9 percent of them were
undecided.
Although disturbing in some ways because "socialstudies"
is a term commonly used in K-12 education, the finding is not
unexpected. Far
more troubling is the finding that 58.8 percent of the participants who
were
completing the course agreed with the statement, and 14.7 percent were
undecided.

In another item, the participants had to consider whether or
not it was
difficult to define socialstudies. Of
the
participants who were completing the course, 58 percent did not think
it was,
and 9.6 percent were undecided. Less than a third of the participants
perceived
the definition of socialstudies as being
elusive,
even though the literature is saturated (Mehlinger
1977; National Commission for SocialStudies
in the
Schools 1989; NCSS 1994; Wesley 1950) with debates over the definition
of socialstudies and discussions about how its definition
influences the
choice of content (Allen 1996; Barth and Shermis 1970). More research is needed to
investigate the
suspicion that to many preservice
elementary teachers
these debates and discussions are either unknown or have not been made
meaningful.

In a third item, the participants had to determine if the term
"socialstudies" really means a combination of history and
geography. Of the participants who were completing the course, 32.5
percent
agreed with the statement, 52.5 percent disagreed with the statement,
and 15
percent were undecided. The results were disappointing because just
over half
the participants considered socialstudies
to be something
other than a combination of history and geography.

While I acknowledge that too much can be inferred from a
limited number of
items, I still feel that the findings raise some important questions.
First, if
almost three-fourths of the participants who were about to complete the
course
either believed that socialstudies was
one of the social
sciences or remained undecided, what did that indicate about their
understanding of the nature of the academic disciplines in the social
sciences and how these disciplines differ from socialstudies?
Second, how can preservice elementary
teachers
adequately understand the multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary
nature of socialstudies if they believe socialstudies
is one of the academic disciplines in the social
sciences? If a
majority of the participants did not perceive socialstudies
as being difficult to define, how do they explain the fact that experts
in the
field have found the opposite to be true? Why was
such a
large percentage (47.5%) of the participants unconvinced that socialstudies was something other than merely a
combination of history
and geography?

Although some issues in socialstudies
education at the preservice level may be
negotiable,
the nature of socialstudies is not one
of them.
Herein lies the third challenge. It is
difficult to
comprehend how socialstudies can be
taught
purposely and successfully as an integrated study of the
social
sciences and other areas to promote civic competence (NCSS 1994) when
its basic
nature remains a mystery to those who are responsible for teaching it.

Challenge 4: Conflicting/Conservative Sociological Beliefs

Banks (1985) stated that one of the major goals for socialstudies
should be "to help develop citizens who have the commitment and the
skills
needed to help close the gap between the democratic ideals of our
nation and
societal realities" (9). That goal, stated in various forms, has long
been
advocated by socialstudies educators.
For example,
the NCSS (1979) concluded that the ultimate goal of socialstudies
was not "to advance the frontiers of knowledge nor to produce social
scientists" (267) but rather "to engage students in analyzing and
attempting to resolve the social issues confronting
them"
(267). Also, the National Commission on SocialStudies
in the Schools (1989) chose as one of its goals the development of
"critical attitudes and analytical perspectives appropriate to analysis
of
the human condition" (65). As a further commitment to that goal, the
NCSS
(1994) described effective socialstudies
programs
as those that "prepare young people to identify, understand, and work
to
solve problems facing our diverse nation in an increasingly
interdependent
world" (159). Clearly, there is a nexus between socialstudies
education and a desire to improve the human condition (Leming
1989) for all the nation's citizenry, but especially for those who have
had
limited access to the nation's political and economic resources.

In principle, the participants agreed with the aforementioned
goal. Several
items on the questionnaire provided data to substantiate that finding.
When the
total number of participants was asked whether "socialstudies
should teach children to accept society the way it is," 74 percent
disagreed with the statement. When they were asked whether "socialstudies should acknowledge our country's social
problems," 90 percent of the participants agreed with the proposition.
When the participants were asked if they favored "teaching children
what
the world is really like as well as what it should be like," 88 percent
of
them responded favorably. Another item asked the participants whether
they
thought it was desirable for children to "believe that American society
needs to be improved," and 90 percent of them responded that it was
desirable. Similarly, when asked whether "children who are concerned
about
problems in our society" was something they considered desirable, 95
percent of the participants believed that it was desirable.

From the data above, we can conclude that the participants
supported the
goal of social improvement. What might not be as obvious
is the
general nature of the items; none dealt with specifics. When the items
became
more specific, the participants responded quite differently than one
might have
been led to think from their previous responses. One such item asked
the
participants whether they believed it was desirable or undesirable for
children
"to believe that the American Dream is available to everyone who will
simply work hard enough to attain it." Of the total number of
participants, 75 percent responded that that was something desirable
for
children to believe. When only the participants
who were
completing the course were included in the analysis, the results were
much the
same: 69 percent of them believed it was desirable; 9 percent of them
found it
undesirable, and 22 percent of them were undecided.

Another item asked whether it was desirable or undesirable for
children to
"believe that America's
political and economic institutions have the best interests of all
Americans at
heart." Of the total number of participants, 26 percent found it
desirable, 36 percent found it undesirable, and 38 percent were
undecided. When
the data were separated so that only the participants who were
completing the
course were included, the results were nearly identical: 28 percent
found it
desirable, 35 percent found it undesirable, and 37 percent were
undecided.

Although the participants had progressive sociological beliefs
generally,
their responses on specific items reflected conservative positions.
That
finding seems to relate directly to important issues in multicultural
education; one of which is the difference that is likely to exist
between the
life experiences and sociological perspectives of teachers and their
students
who are members of diverse cultural groups (Banks 1988; Garcia 1994;
Grossman
1995). Because most teachers come, and will continue to come, from a
middle-class background, the sociological perspective they bring to the
classroom may be far more conservative and benign than that of minority
parents
and children. That difference in perspective is inherent in both items
that
were specific in nature.

For the first item, the difference is found in how one
explains the
realities of poverty and unemployment in the United
States. A belief that everyone can
attain
the American Dream simply by hard work is what Bennett and LeCompte
(1990) refer to as "a middle-class ideology which states that status
and
mobility in American society are based upon merit, earned
competitively, and
facilitated by schooling" (161). To those who accept that ideology,
individuals who experience poverty and unemployment have only
themselves to
blame; they just have not tried hard enough to succeed (Lewis 1978, Sleeter and Grant 1993). Comments made by preservice elementary teachers subsequent to the
initial study
provide further evidence of such a belief. Five selections from their
statements that support the conservative ideology follow:

I believe children need to know
that the American Dream is available to everyone [emphasis in original]
but that to attain it one must work hard. If you want something [goal],
you have to do what is needed to get it. Not only does it take work but
also an education. Nears age, an education wasn't as important as
today. A lot of parents back then didn't go to school. Therefore, study
in school.

I believe that it is important
for children to have dreams. I also think it is important to teach our
children that anything is possible if you work hard enough.

I would explain to this child
that it is not impossible for people in poverty to get out and reach
the American Dream. I would emphasize the hard work part of it and tell
the student it is a struggle, but to always keep the hope alive.

It is important for students to
believe that it's possible to achieve in America.
even though they need to realize
that many things are only a dream [emphasis original].

I would tell the child that I do
not know why he lives in the projects. And that the government is not
responsible for why he or she lives the way they do. People make their
own choices in life. And it is not of [sic] my business
how choose to live it.

Bennett and LeCompte note that
those who accept
such explanations somehow overlook the fact that that ideology most
often
applies in principle to those who are already the most advantaged
(white
middle-and upper-class men). The contrast is rather apparent between
the
conservative, "middle class" ideology and one that includes such
concepts as "reproduction," "hegemony," "oppression,"
"resistance," and empowerment" (Apple 1978, 1979, 1982; Giroux
1983a, 1983b, 1988; Freire 1970)--concepts
that
persons with minority status in a society may find particularly
relevant and
meaningful.

The difference also concerns how one perceives the nature of
society. Sleeter and Grant (1993) believe
that members of dominant
groups are likely to perceive the nature of society as fair and open,
whereas
members of oppressed groups are likely to view it as unfair or rigged.
An
uncritical view of societal institutions is a characteristic of
structural
functionalism (Bennett and LeCompte 1990),
which,
once again, reflects a conservative position, that is, "a benign,
unquestioning view of the social system" and one that
"accepts existing class structures as appropriate" (Bennett and LeCompte 1990, 6). Such a view has little in
common with
"critical citizenship" (Engle and Ochoa 1988) that encourages
questioning and leaves room for doubt.

The fourth challenge is to encourage preservice
elementary teachers to adopt and teach the all-important socialstudies
goal of working to improve society. A conflict may exist between their
general
agreement with the ideals of that broad goal and their conservative
sociological beliefs on specific issues. Additional research is needed
in this
area. What becomes clear is the need for professors to engage preservice elementary teachers in meaningful and
substantive discussions about sociological issues, especially because
elementary classrooms will include increasing numbers of students from
diverse
cultural groups (Garcia 1994).

Challenge 5: Selecting What to Teach

The number of topics deemed pertinent to socialstudies
education at the preservice level
continues to
expand. As the content demands increase, so does the pressure on
professors to
prepare preservice elementary teachers
adequately for
an increasing number of responsibilities. The sheer number of topics
can leave
professors perplexed about finding enough time to cover some, much less
all, of
them. Massialas and Allen (1996) label
some of these
topics "crucial issues" and include the following under the
description of what to teach in socialstudies:
creating a civic culture, the hidden curriculum, student motivation,
thinking
skills, values education, global education, multicultural studies,
gender studies, educational technology, alternative
assessment,
meeting the needs of students with disabilities, and academic freedom.
One of
the greatest challenges facing professors is how to use the limited
amount of
time available to them in a prudent manner.

Elementary socialstudiesmethods
textbooks typically present what Leming
(1989,1992) refers to as the socialstudies
theorists' culture of socialstudies.
Another apt
description of that culture is a `university perspective' of socialstudies education. Within this perspective, the
following
positions are usually espoused: Society needs to be improved (Banks
1985);
controversial studies (or problem-centered units) should
be
included in the curriculum (Jarolimek and
Parker
1993); citizenship education is highly related to socialstudies
(Maxim 1995); units of study are highly desirable
(Chapin and Messick 1995); social
interaction among
students is encouraged (Ellis 1995); student engagement in social
issues is a worthy and realistic goal (Martorella
1994); and multiple perspectives should be used for investigating
historical
events (Brophy and Alleman
1996).

I designed the Elementary SocialStudies
Perspective Questionnaire to measure a university perspective of
elementary socialstudies. The items were derived from a literature
review of the
professional writings in the field and from elementary socialstudiesmethods textbooks. For the two groups in the study,
an ANCOVA was used to test the adjusted means, with GPA serving as a
covariant.
Although the participants who were completing the course had a
significantly
higher adjusted mean (a more positive university perspective) than
those who
had not yet taken the course (M = 4.0 vs. M = 3.82), the difference on
a practical
level was too small to be meaningful. Both groups had a moderately
positive
university perspective of elementary socialstudies.

Among the possible explanations for the lack of practical
significance, one
that deserves careful consideration suggests that the ideals of socialstudies education (i.e., a university perspective)
are closely
aligned with the ideals of education in general (Hollins
1996; Leming 1989; Schubert 1986).
According to that
hypothesis, preservice elementary teachers
who enroll
in a course that addresses socialstudiesmethods,
after having been exposed to the ideals of education in introductory
education
courses, are predisposed to accept a university perspective and readily
agree
with most of the general elements of this perspective.

On a practical level, the issue is whether or not professors
should spend as
much time (let alone an entire semester) attempting to persuade preservice elementary teachers of the merits of
the general
elements of a university perspective. To use the limited amount of time
efficiently, professors need to engage preservice
elementary teachers in new, challenging, and unresolved issues rather
than in
those on which, for the most part, they are already in agreement. The
findings
should encourage professors to spend more time discussing critical and
complex
topics and less time covering generalities that relate to a university
perspective.

The fifth challenge is selecting and teaching content that is
new,
challenging, complex, and specific, rather than that which is
redundant,
simple, and general. By going beyond the general, valuable and
enriching
discussions can occur between professors and preservice
elementary teachers.

Challenge 6: Using a Concurrent SocialStudies
Field Experience

Two universities in South Florida
required an
intensive and interactive field experience during a preservice
elementary teacher's enrollment in a socialstudiesmethods course. Other universities in the area used
different
models for providing field experience in socialstudies
prior to student teaching. For the two universities that offered a
concurrent
field experience, using it to its full advantage proved problematic.
Although
the data supported the general finding that the field experience was
beneficial
and important to the participants (N = 127), areas for improvement were
found.

For instance, when considering the field experience in
relation to what the
students had learned in their socialstudiesmethods
course, 80 percent of the participants found it a positive experience
("excellent" or "good"). Of those participants, the finding
that just over a third (33.9%) of them evaluated it as being
"excellent" was disappointing. The other 20 percent of the
participants evaluated the field experience as being either "fair"
(15.7%)
or "poor" (4.7%).

Because nearly all the instructional strategies that are
recommended in
elementary socialstudiesmethods
(e.g., cooperative learning, roleplaying,
simulation,
inquiry, group and independent projects) encourage socially interactive
and
active learning experiences (NCSS 1994), one would naturally think that
field
experience placements would be made with directing teachers who model
these
strategies. The data revealed that over 30 percent of the participants
were
placed with directing teachers whom they described as having a
"traditional" teaching style. Although the term
"traditional" is subject to interpretation, it is commonly used to
denote a style that favors passive rather than active learning
experiences (Dewey
1938) and one that is highly teacher-directed (Hollins
1996).

The most revealing finding to support the contention that the
field
experience was not used optimally pertained to the participants'
evaluation of
the interest level their directing teachers had for teaching socialstudies. A third of the participants (33.3%)
reported that their
directing teachers were either "uninterested" or "very
uninterested" in teaching socialstudies.
It
is counterproductive, to say the least, to place a preservice
teacher with a directing teacher who is not interested in teaching socialstudies.

To meet the sixth challenge, instructors must place each preservice
elementary teacher with a directing teacher who can provide
encouragement,
positive modeling, and support for teaching socialstudies.
Simply finding directing teachers who are willing to have preservice
elementary teachers in their classrooms is not an
acceptable
nor a successful strategy for making field experience
placements.

These formidable challenges are obstacles that professors of socialstudiesmethods will confront. Socialstudies educators on all levels have a vital
interest in
discussing the challenges and developing effective strategies to meet
them. To
enhance their dialogue, I offer the general observations that follow:

For the first challenge,
secondary and postsecondary socialstudies
educators must improve existing lines of communication and develop new
ones. The fact that socialstudiesis considered boring by a large percentage of preservice elementary teachers needs to be
addressed within the context of causes and cures. What must not be
overlooked is the fact that 90 percent of the participants in the study
were women. The issue of integrating women into the socialstudies curriculum (Bloom and Ochoa 1996) must
receive more attention, and changes must occur that will allow women to
relate better to the content of socialstudies
courses.

The finding that socialstudieshas a low
status among preservice elementary
teachers mirrors the view found among elementary teachers in general.
What must become more apparent is that teaching socialstudies
can be a rewarding, enjoyable. meaningful,
and significant experience, both for elementary teachers and their
students. Although socialstudies will
continue to lag behind other content areas so long as current concerns
over reading and mathematics remain the focus of the public, it can
attract a greater following. Of the preservice
elementary teachers who were completing the course, the largest
percentage of them (24%) reported that they did not yet have a
preference for a content area. Professors of elementary socialstudies should take some solace from that
finding and develop strategies for reaching the uncommitted.

Although discussions are constantly occurring over what
content should be
taught to elementary children, the real issue is whether teachers (preservice and inservice),
who
have a low regard for socialstudies,
will make the
necessary effort to find the time to teach the subject at all,
regardless of
what the content is. Presently, that issue appears to be the more
important of
the two.

3. Professors of socialstudies must make ever, effort to ensure that preservice ice elementary teachers finish a
course that addresses socialstudiesmethods
with an understanding of the basic nature of socialstudies.
A follow-up study should be conducted to verify the
findings of the current study.

4. The fourth challenge serves
notice of the need to discuss various sociological issues. particularly those that relate to race, class,
and gender, in courses that address socialstudiesmethods. The topic of multicultural education
could serve as a springboard for such discussions. Professors cannot
assume that a sociology course, somewhere along the way, will provide preservice elementary teachers with sufficient
opportunities to reflect upon their own sociological beliefs.

5. The fifth challenge may, in
fact, have a "silver lining." Professors of socialstudiesmethods cannot ignore the prior knowledge and
attitudes that preservice elementary
teachers bring to their courses. The current study
suggests that preservice elementary
teachers have a predisposition to accept many of the general elements
of a university perspective of elementary socialstudies
and that more time should be spent discussing specific issues.

6. To address the sixth
challenge, universities must implement or improve the monitoring
procedures for field experience placements. Those procedures should
provide guidelines for screening, selecting, evaluating, retaining, it
necessary. excluding directing teachers.
Every preservice elementary teacher
deserves to benefit positively from a socialstudies
field experience, and universities and schools must work together to
reach that goal.